And, finally, because unimproved roads typically don't have facilities of \[sic\] all modes of travel, <br />the risk to public safety on unimproved roads increases with new development." -- City <br />Engineer Mark Schoening testimony at the June 21, 2017 City Council work session. <br />24. Further, Mr. Gillespie's statements are directly contradicted by the Draft "Vision Zero Action <br />Plan" and his opinion conflicts with the official "Vision Zero" policy adopted by City Council <br />Resolution No. 5143: "STRATEGIES: Reduce potential for conflict between users. Decreasing <br />the possibility that street users can come into conflict is the first line of defense against crashes. <br />This means providing separated space for people walking, biking, driving and taking transit <br />along the street." Page 19. <br />25. As reported and documented by opponents of the PUD, the following statement by Mr. <br />Gillespie is misleading: "I would encourage Brent and Paul to research queuing and multi-modal <br />street design practice. FHWA, NCHRP, NACTO, <br />Bike/ped groups, etc all have publications that discuss and tout the benefits of queuing street <br />from built in traffic calming and accommodating multimodal & vision 0 goals." This statement is <br />misleadin <br />since no credible references or organization encouraging forcing pedestrians into the travel lane <br />as a "safety improvement" exists. Especially the reputable references named make no such <br />recommendation. <br />26. A qualified traffic engineer would know that "multi-modal" does not in any way mean <br />deliberate "unsegregated mixture of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic motorized ". <br />27. An actual field test with current Fire Department staff and apparatus must be conducted to <br />demonstrate and prove that they can respond to emergencies in the area with little or no <br />excess delay. <br />accept that the proposed street sections and the emergency <br />access from starting point to the proposed CHPUD are safe and acceptable with the addition of <br />traffic from the proposed CHPUD. <br />Conclusions <br />It is abundantly evident that the existing neighbors do not necessarily oppose the proposed <br />development in itself, however, when a developer tries to cut costs and puts profits before <br />livability, and avoids complying with adopted City, County, State and Federal standards which <br />impacts the safety and well being of the existing and future residents, concerns and issued are <br />raised. The value of adopted standards become evident when topography poses challenges. <br />The proposed development would add very expensive lots and homes to the neighborhood, but <br />with higher revenue for the City from high priced lots come high standards that the developer <br />must be held to. By Increasing the number of vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists that are forced to <br />use the narrow sections of Capital Drive that lacks sidewalks will inevitably increase the risk of <br />accidents involving non-motorized users. This result is a serious concern with respect to the <br />safety of Capital Drive. This can be and should be mitigated to accommodate the existing and <br />future residents. The characteristics of the existing and potential future development point to <br />high presence of bicycles, pedestrians and a more comprehensive Traffic Impact <br />Assessment/Analysis must be required to address various issues, identify solutions and provide <br /> <br />